The 12 rounds Carl Froch spent banging on Abraham's rock/head in Helsinki on Saturday night to reclaim his WBC super-middleweight title showed what a smart fighter he is. It should also have gone a long way to placing Froch alongside or maybe just behind Joe Calzaghe as Britain's best 12-stone fighter.

Froch won against Arthur Abraham with speed, discipline and boxing nous, qualities for which his detractors have never given him credit. He was briefly inconvenienced in round four by a man widely regarded as one of the finest middleweights in the world but Froch won every session. Anyone who gave the Armenian even a round could be accused of unnecessary charity or not paying attention.

Loudmouths who know next to nothing about boxing (as well as some of his promotional rivals) deride Froch as a one-dimensional hard man who keeps his left-hand too low – a lot like his friend David Haye in fact. And how wrong have people been about the WBA heavyweight champion?

As Haye explained recently, his low-hand style is his defence, because it not only allows him more easily to draw an opponent on to a punch (or dissuades him from doing so), it encourages his own evasive head and body movement. Froch is not so elastic but on Saturday night he boxed as well as he ever has.

Froch, unlike Haye and Calzaghe, has never earned the acclaim he deserves, partly because his rise coincided with the ebbing of cash at ITV and the BBC's abandonment of boxing, with no space left for him on Sky either.

This was a fight that should have been broadcast live and free to the nation, rather than tucked away on Primetime pay-per-view, where only the hardcore go. How daft it is that the Nottingham hero is seen by more people on Showtime in America than in his own country.

So let us get his achievements in perspective and measure them alongside those of the man with whom he should have shared a ring:

How good was Froch's one-sided win over a live Abraham? More convincing than Calzaghe's farewell, payday win over a spent Jones.

Froch's win over the tricky Dirrell was on a par with Calzaghe's close win over the cagey Hopkins.

Froch's come-from-behind stoppage of Taylor was as tough as Calzaghe's ugly war with Bika.

There is not much to choose between Froch-Rybacki and Calzaghe-Manfredo, both ticking-over mismatches.

Froch's finest performance was his punch party with Pascal, who has gone on to prove his worth at light-heavyweight (and should shred what is left of Hopkins when he defends his WBC title against the old boy next month). Calzaghe hit the heights the night he did a total number on Lacy, effectively wrecking his rising career.

Their one common opponent, though, Kessler, is the benchmark. Joe was magnificent in seeing off the determined Dane, even though Kessler fought with an injured hand.

Although Froch still reckons he beat Kessler in Denmark, the officials thought otherwise. He should let that one lie. He gave it his best shot but could not find a way – and that was always Joe's strength: he found a way.

Overall I would put Calzaghe just ahead of Froch. He was unbeaten and, on many nights, unbeatable. His hand-speed was astonishing. He stretched his career to just about the limits at the end, having to get off the floor to beat two faded legends, Hopkins and Jones.

It is a shame Joe did not extend his career for one more fight – or find time earlier in his schedule – to accommodate the man who now wears his crown with justified pride.

Pavlik mirrors Hatton

Kelly Pavlik and Ricky Hatton have much in common, some of it good, some of it bad.

Pavlik is a former world champion undergoing rehab for a drinking problem, an innocent victim of his own naivety and friends who could never tell him when he had had enough.

Is this already sounding uncomfortably familiar?

Pavlik, the 28-year-old hero of Youngstown, Ohio, a working-class town where male culture is strong, was due to fight on the undercard of Manny Pacquiao's fight with Antonio Margarito in Texas but that pointless bout against Bryan Vera, a no-name from nowhere, was called off – supposedly because of a rib injury to Pavlik.

Pavlik's trainer, Jack Loew, told Yahoo! Sports the injury was legitimate. According to the report, Pavlik's drinking has been a problem for a long time, despite repeated denials by the fighter and those close to him.

Is it not always the way? Certainly, in Hatton's case, Ricky and his friends had downplayed his extraordinary drinking exploits as nothing to worry about. It was part of his endearing nature, part of the way he grew up. He just wanted to please everyone.

Ricky is a warm, no-nonsense northern bloke. At the height of his fame and power life was for living and an hour sleeping was an hour wasted. But, by the time he had negotiated the biggest fights of his career – losing to Floyd Mayweather and Pacquiao – Ricky had chanced his arm in more ways than one.

In Pavlik's case the pattern was unerringly familiar. As his father and co-manager, Mike, told Kevin Iole: "We're trying to help him get back on his feet and back on the right track. It's been ongoing since shortly after he won the title. I guess what happened is that he was not prepared for what came with the title.

"Winning the title was one of the greatest moments in his life but at the same time it could have been the worst moment in his life. I'm not complaining about him winning the title but it was instant stardom after that and the demands on his life became so hard and so intense that he couldn't deal with it.

"The kind of kid Kelly is, he doesn't want to say no to anyone. It was kind of like the Mickey Mantle syndrome here. Everywhere he went, everyone wanted to buy the champ a beer. He didn't want to disappoint anyone or say no and it wound up causing him a pretty serious problem."

Ricky's father, Ray, who is also his manager, has said eerily similar things. The Hattons have started the healing process (and how proud they are of young Matthew, whose impressive stoppage of Roberto Belge in Bolton on Friday night puts him in sight of a world title shot). Now it is the Pavliks' turn.